Gaze Restriction and Reactivation of Place-bound Content Drive Eye Movements During Mental Imagery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When we imagine a picture, we move our eyes even though the picture is physically not present. These eye movements provide information about the ongoing process of mental imagery. Eye movements unfold over time, and previous research has shown that the temporal gaze dynamics of eye movements in mental imagery have unique properties, which are unrelated to those in perception. In mental imagery, refixations of previously fixated locations happen more often and in a more systematic manner than in perception. The origin of these unique properties remains unclear. We tested how the temporal structure of eye movements is influenced by the complexity of the mental image. Participants briefly saw and then maintained a pattern stimulus, consisting of one (easy condition) to four black segments (most difficult condition). When maintaining a simple pattern in imagery, participants restricted their gaze to a narrow area, and for more complex stimuli, eye movements were more spread out to distant areas. At the same time, fewer refixations were made in imagery when the stimuli were complex. The results show that refixations depend on the imagined content. While fixations of stimulus-related areas reflect the so-called 'looking at nothing' effect, gaze restriction emphasizes differences between mental imagery and perception.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it